i have seen a great deal of agreement across the table, especially with congressman english. when i was talking to the center for the american progress, the energy future coalition had a series of listening says -- listening sessions. we have the transmission companies and the environmental groups, and we found broad changes in federal law to restore this to bring for renewable -- to bring renewable resources to market. and we are offshore in the east. .

>> the system we have today for plonning, permitting transmission lines was not designed to handle this challenge of magnitude. >> our discussion was those who must deliver on this promise quickly focused on the obsticles of planning, siting confidential owe indication we heard repeatedly today. this turned out to be the lifrpbl pin we recommended enlarging the scale of the planning process to the two principal planning commissions.

almost 300,000 mega wats are waiting to connect to the grid because there is inadequate transition capacity. your discussion is a good illustration of the need of planning across the entire administration. an enhanced planning process should plan on, not replace the stake holders including steaks,

deprid operators. this will remain a state, not a federal process. siting authority would rest but the states collectively would have more power, not less than they do now. their plans would govern the exercise of that federal authority. only if that planning process breaks down would they have the ability to respond to disputes. we have been gratified to see many of our recommendations on report. a system of interconnection wire transmission.

>> you can help our common goal of a clean energy future become a reality and not be less strandid by the impediments. they deserve no less. thank you so much. >> next witness is joseph welsh. >> welcome and please begin. >> thank you and good afternoon chairman and members of the subcommittee. my name is joseph welch.

i'm chairman, ceo of it holdings. the nation's first and only independent facilitator of connection of any sources of connection put before us and making sure we connected loads. we own and operate thousands of lines across the country. as we have worked through these various states each one different in every state. the problem is that as it should be when we get to the

outcome, this is going to become a major impediment i think it offers a lot of good information which is consistent with the items that are here. go together fundamental principals here. we need a policy for energy in this country. we debate about whether it is right or wrong. the fundamental issue is we need a policy to play into. with that policy in place, the rest of the items become a lot clearer. a lot of the debates we hear

are closer than farther apart. for instance with a policy, then the planners. we have talked about this in the item we support. we need independent planning authority. we need to take the policy and get it implemented in a clear way. secondly, if you have a policy, then the cost can be dictated from the policy itself. we now know where we want to go and what those benefactors are. that policy sits at the top and we need that. last but not least, i always tell people being in the transmission business, it's a great business until i do one of two things. the first item is bring transmission lines. the process is long and hard. when we need is true federal

backsiding authority. the states should be involved in the process as you've heard there are thousands of megawats this country needs to deploy. we need to deploy it now. if we start now, we are years away from our goal line. i thank you for my opportunity to speak here today. >> thank you. >> our next witness is christopher miller. he is key member focused on the conservation issues of the peed mont area of virginia . >> thank you for being here. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of peed mont

conservation. we are an active member of the land trust alliance and working hard on this issue with them. i have a couple of maps i hope the staff can put up. we appreciate the time and attention this committee is taking to consider these issues. we appreciate the willingness to deal with the transmission. from our perspective, the transmission is only a tool for the electricity. mover importantly, the policy for modified peek demand so that the need in transmission structure is minimized and encourage clean depen operation that would reduce the losses

caused by energy transmission. the transmission system has potential for the impact that conflict with federal state and local policies. in the brief amount of time i have, i want to focus on a couple issues that have not been raised yet. one example is up here on this grid that would link resources.

it was originally overlaid over wind resources. in fact, the correspondence with coal resources is higher. that's one of the causes of concerns is in fact encouraging greater generation of goal fire leg slation. governing which generation is brought on line first. we dispatch energy by price. we have heard a lot of calls for compel tiff pricing. the potential that that would increase the amount of emissions that is carrying

unless this committee can also ensure that before that transmission is made available, we are putting in the carbon cuts to the cap and trade and otherwise putting in the coal plants. there's a possibility that the depains made by the 45 million tons or so of emissions could be offset. the second issue is the issue of peek versus average demand. the transmission and depen operation system is being designed to meet peek loads. the more we can do, the less we have to build across our landscape.

the final thought is this. it's very important to re inspect the public issues. it's important to seek the cultural resources and landscape america values so much.

east of the mississippi, most land is privately owned. in the wace of massachusetts, hundreds of thousands of acres are individually approved each time. the same is true in virginia . they are due all of the respect a national park would be due. you think forward on those transmission lines that have to be built. make sure you are mitdepitting and compensating on the impact on those resources. >> thank you. our final witness is david jose, president and chief executive officer of the

principal subsitry energy consumers. welcome. >> thank you. and thank you for announcing my name properly. >> i appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee this afternoon. we there for appreciate the

difficulty in siting new transmission and new interstailt lines as a last resort. we see a need for transmissions in michigan. along the lake michigan shore line as part of the renewable standard. we believe the developments should meet three key commomon sense principals. number one, proposed project should be similar or superior to other alternatives including other transmission solutions, low voltage solutions. finally, costs ought to be fairly allocated to the beneficialries of the project as determined through the planning process.

i provide some specific michigan examples. i suggest the model a appropriate.

determined not to meet the test for the state of michigan. a number of planning authorities in the eastern interconnect row isn'tly studied the joint plan referred to earlier involving $56,000 high volume overlay equal to constructing the interstate highway system. looking just at consumer customers roughly a $2 million annual benefit. i schmidt michigan simply can't afford that.

>> as far east as quhick of course does not reach michigan. furnler, when the cost is included in the equation, michigan based transmission is more to develop. we contend with the northeast and mid-atlantic governors on developing renewable resources locally. we don't object to such projects if the benefits exceed the cost by a regional margin that might be the code of the developers that node to meet their standards even without

theseover lays. we don't feel that the oversight is taking transmission. it's owned and there for not subject to the oversight. we think targeted transmission investment is needed both in michigan and nationally. we believe planning and groups is an appropriate way to pursue that. we think three key principals need to be followed. wince reasonable cost, two, reasonable alternatives have been considered and three, costs are appropriately allocated. >> thank you. >> we thank our entire panel. we'll turn and recognize the

gentleman from washington state. >> thank you, first i'd like to put into the record a white paper, which is quite instructive entitled green powered super highways >> thank you. i appreciate that. this white paper does confirm what the witnesses talked about. we have 300,000 megawats of wind proyjects. they point out that the lack of transmission is hindering states this would allow and

encourage the sources low and in the depreen house gas again rators. would it help in some sense who don't want to see their off shore wind project intruded upon if we could call it dirty resources. >> i think there's a lot of confusion about how the standard would work. it doesn't govern what electrons are on the line. you can't distinguish between depreen and brown electrons.

if we are going to provide some addition follow authority to site and pay for special new transmission lines to benefit, let's make sure that the generation that's hooked up to it is not conventional coal. since you are going to need probably gas to balance renewable energy on these lines. up to a single cycle gas tur pine emission level would be acceptable to these lines but above that would not. that seems like a fairly straight forward way to approach that. with regard to the question of competition with local resources, i think what should be important. and what would happen if the states are driving this

planning process even on n interconnection wide basis is that they take into consideration state policies and use delivered prices as mentioned in the last panel as the basis for comparing different resources. that's a straight forward way to make sure the competition is fair. >> i'll ask you what i hope is the restoric cal question. is that a fair characterization of the proposal made? absolutely, i think the legislation you propose

addressing these regional issues. this would only be able to step in if states couldn't reach a plan. >> could you address the concern from the gentleman from massachusetts about the west being crowded out, if you will. i think a stronger step would be to have federal institution on the loading orders i think

within the context of what is doable, the approach is about as strong as it could be. i think your legislation reflects that as well. >> do you support the authority to modify any trangs mission plans established through the resources? >> i would not. >> nor would i.

>> no, sir. no. >> i think if the plans are developed by a broad away of states the way we are describing, i would agree, no. regional planning process. by the state. should the perk be able to modify the agreed upon plan. if the planning process is independent, no. if it is, yes. >> influenced by market participants. the planning process to me -- >> even if the state governor, the state governments agreed to it.

right now, under those circumstances, you would give them the authority? >> if you are going to create that, that ought to be equally available to both the proponents and those that have concerns. >> can we ask how many of you

would support that? >> i would nolt not to the fact that it does not speak to the system being able to piggy back. >> i have to qualify my answer, i'm not specifically sure thank you. >> no, sir, we would not support. >> i believe the bill in it self takes care of that issue,

so no. >> with my company, we are an independent transmission company. you make the policy we are going to support the policy. the authorities would apply to transmission bringing new generation on to the grid just to touch on these two points, we are talking about transmission lines that would be feeding into the larger grid. if this is attached to hr 2454 and enacted. then some of the reason for it goes away. there's also a possibility this

would be disconnected from that bill. as a free standing measure, we think greenhouse gas would be important. i would limit federal authority as only a backstop mechanism. >> assuming the backstop authority, no, we wouldn't limit that. >> again, backstop. if we are going to state

special authorities, they ought to be targeted. >> mr. welsh. >> i would not. mr. miller? >> i think we would support limiting it and respecting the fourth circuit opinion we are involved in. >> could you talk a little bit about that first map which mr. miller put up that showed rich wind resources with the excemption of portions of the great lakes and out on the west coast. it looks like it has the greatest potential for renow

able energy. that's not to under estimate the challenges of construction and operations of maintenance cost. >> what could happen if we take mr. miller's maps that have been put together? >> we overlayed it on wind and then resource maps. what impact might that have on your planning for renewable

electricity? you are up in the great lakes. talk about that. what potential could that have for michigan or if power was wheeled in through other parts of the coisht? >> it's a bit similar but maybe two aspects. first of all, it's clearly windier you mentioned off

shore, unfortunately off shore is tougher to build. you heard the earlier testimony about the problem of getting the resources over to minnesota and the blame being laid at the feet of the federal government. do you believe that is one of the main problems that otherwise regions have been able to harmonize in a way

that's able to view >> i'm aware that the planning process has been affective. you warp the economics when you start putting free transmission along and expect them to change dramatically.

>> there's significant cost involved. it change $the economics. one of the things we are trying to accomplish is to generate renewable energy in all 50 states. he has a plan along with all the other people in the country

we don't want to invoke the law of unintentional consquentions here the richest renewable industry right off the shore. i also suggest one other thing. it might make more sense in light of the fact that we are entering into a little different world making use of it all across this nation. i can understand why several

folks want to make this localized if you are looking at this map and the fact that we are talking along this coast. obviously we ought to be looking and produce it and use that most cost quectively one

quick point. i know i've got a home in south carolina. it's on a mountain top. we have a huge amount of wind up there. if you try to build a wind generator, you have a lot of people that will object to it. it doesn't cost 37 cents to really move a letter from new jersey to new york city. it probably costs less. but the average is 37 cents so someone request mail a letter from south dakota. that's great. we september that. that's the way it should be.

if you do the same thing off the coastline of new jersey, that's going to undermine the economics from the east coast because it hasn't factored into cost of transmitting that energy 1500 miles all the way into the east coast market. the question becomes how many new jobs will be created alonching the east coast of the united states if there is no incentive any longer. because he's almost bound by his obligation to his share holders to take all of this inexpensive but subsidized energy. >> how do we square this circle so that others on the

disincentive to produce renewables. >> broad based fair rates. the people using the power are paying the cost sf i looked at this last year alone the price difference change from 20-30

miles an hour. >> it would be cheaper to use a wind farm operating in the plains 40% of the time. it's the total cost that matters. if you eliminate transmission. suddenly, the 40% time looks cheaper but you put a burden on the american taxpayer and ended our economic development in our region. nazz a problem that we have to

work through. i apologize to everyone, i really could spend pt whole afternoon with you. next week, i might spend the week with each of you. we have to be fair. every state can actually play a role here. we have to make sure we render the things to the east coast and to the south that are there. you were saying you represent p 5% of the land mass. >> there's an ocean there too. >> with each state, each

region. and the history of each state and region. they have just the same impact in terms of the history of our states. i thank each of you and i'll turnover the conclusion of the hearing. thank you so much. >> i don't get to sit in this chair often.

i won't make you state long just because i'm enjoying it. one of the things i would point out and slirnl we heard some testimony from the first panel if you look at the processes

>> you could make an argument this process could be given 12-24 months to occur. it concerns me when really much of the new focus is subject to order 890 is just under way >> i have one question for the panel. it depozz without saying that construction of the super highway will be the money maker i'd like to ask you all what if

any would these prift interests would play. how should we approachly limit or not why don't we go from left to right and start with mr. miller. i appreciate that question. that's been the most troubling aspect in the pjm. that is from the ultilities ratifying the proposals themselves. they do not have the process that complies with the order. they were looking only at transmission solutions and not at the alternatives. think do not do the quind of balancing of impacts that state utility commissions have authority to do.

there's no balancing of the administrations even in the alternative community. they are starting to improve on those things the frustration i feel with the planning process as i agree with you. we don't have full participation. you are not going to get to the solution set that you need

number two, like when we had problems in 2003 with the largest black out that affected this country, we finally came to the conclusion that nerk wasn't fund the properly. we changed the way it was funded. it's funded through an assessment through all the ultilities we've taken the incentives out. when we talk about the planning, it's about getting the financial impacts off the back of the rto. then when we get to that point, you have the question that says who should participate and what should be the rates of returns

that these companies return. when you start to build regional projects, they should be all participating in as financial investors. those people should be part of that investment proposition because they are all there to make the grid work in a concert way. when you build a reeg follow grid, v you have to have yourself in a position that you could maintain it. without everyone being from, this gets tough to do. when you get to that point, that's what it will be.

>> thank you for the question. private companies go out and raise the capitol in the markets to do that. as regulators consider that, they have to provide the cost of that at the high cost of raising and then a rate of return on top of that. you would reduce the cost to the customers >> we've had many complaints about the fact that it is

difficult in the process. both about the size and complexity needed to compromise . a lot of it does come down to the situation many of those basically do not have the all clusive administration locally in designing many of the system that's come forward there's much work that needs to be done. we need a broad based planning system in place it's varied in our members views in regions. it really is necessary that

everyone be at the table and be participating in their i am put be accounted. i will say the comment of the ipo regions vary as well. this leaves a lot to be desired. i will lastly mention the benefits i mentioned about joint ownership. equal opportunities for folks in the american transmission company is a good example of this. provides planning as well. >> i think the integrated

ultilities favor investment in transmission for solution to the problems frankly, the rates of return are higher and the level of risk are lower than other kinds of investments for example what is put in place. our concern is you see a rush to include the transmission i will say again, there are tranches mission project that's make sense. we have to be careful not to in sent the investments. i do think broad public planning of some nature is necessary with broad

participation >> thank you. we operate the depen operation business the regulated transmission business means providing 99.99% of the time. it works and works well that is regulated in rates across the service the unregulated service always passes the cost across the grid. you need to dispel the notion that renewables are not being built because of the pricing systems. the next thing, i expect to

hear is this freight trains would run free of cost refrige rator trains all of our deproshery stores could have free ice. >> before i adjourn, i need to ask unanumous consent that two letters to chairman are put in the record. without objection, so ordered. with that, our hearing is adjourned.

presidential advisor and the creator and founder of guitar hero and the art of political cartooning. >> coming up this hour, from foreign policy magazine joins

us. after that, an update on politics and news with karl cannon and robert schlesinger. later, what's ahead for federal climate change administration in the new year. wark journal begins now. >> suicide bombing leaves eight americans dead including intelligence personnel. and taking a stake at gmac at a former lending arm of general motors. obamas nominee withdrawn. first, welcome you to the

washington journal. today is december 31, thursday. this is the last day of the year. the last day of this decade. to that end, we want to talk with you and get some of your thoughts for the first half hour of defining events of this decade. what do you think made this decade the decade that it was. >> send us emails and twitter comments. >> on the front page of a special section of the new york

daily news. 2000-2010, a decade that changed the world forever. he said there was some thought that says we should have changed this deck audience to the ought that should have stuck. ought to have been done better still these years have been the new 1960's in america with one difference, not just the music and clothes being better.

going on to say does this decade beat the 1960's? probably not because of the so much of the romance's yated with that decade. there are smart teachers that have said the upheaval did not officially end until the resignation of richard nixon -- the man kennedy beat out for presidency in 1960. a resent edition of time magazine called this decade, the decade from hell and why the next one will be better.

>> how would you define this decade? >> i would say the war on religious stances. especially the war in the middle east. we don't know what's next. to let our religions be a reason to kill one another is a little bit goofy to me. >> do you see a shift happening in the next decade? do you think we've learned anything from this past decade >> well, we shouldn't allow

religious and belief systems to define us and make us keel one another. host: what do you think is the defining event of the past decade. caller: i think it's 9/11. it's interesting that since this thing happened on obama's watch, the republicans are blaming obama. host: do you think anything has been learn frd this event?

>> in this time magazine, writing book ended by the begin ing with 9/11. we are still weeks away flt end of 2009 but it is not too early to pass judgment. call it the decade from hell or the decade of broken dreams or the loss decade. just give thank that it is nearly over. >> i agree that 9/11 was a defining moment.

i sigh that in the future, a lot of prodemocratic movements like iraq and iran are going to happen host: next up ron in florida. caller: i say this is a decade of war for america >> now nigerians are worried we are going to attack them because this kid was from there. host: what do you think the lesson is? caller: it doesn't work to just keep attacking countries.

why is cheney trying to egg obama on? he's doing what cheney wants. the industrial complexes are making trillions. the beat keeps going on. thank you. host: next gary for democrats in louisiana. turn down your radio, it will help a lot. caller: i think the diggest thing in this decade, to have the first african american was voted into the house.

i'm ashamed to say 12% of the people in my state caucasian people voted far barack obama. i'm ashamed to be from this state. >>

>> back to the phones. john on the line for inds. caller: good morning. i tell you what. i believe it was a decade squandered by the bush administration. i support president obama but i can tell you this, george bush was sleeping at the wheel when we got hit on finle. i can guarantee you without a doubt there would be an impeachmentles lution on the floor of the house if obama or al gore would have been on the bench. we lost a lot with that decade. i watched people just trade away everything at the feet of

the bush administration he was treated like a hero when he's asleep at the wheel. host: what do you say to people making comparisons between the efficiency of the security and intelligence during the early days of the bush administration during the attack on 9/11 and what just happened over the christmas weekend in the obama administration. i try not to blame the president. i really don't in a sense blame bush. i realize mistakes get made. we can't stop people from getting on planes in other countries. bush was sleeping.

they want to be president. then i'm not sure they really want the job when they get it. host: today's usa today winners and loosers of 2009. some ascended to new heights. others stumbled. an up and coming senator shaking hands in january, you spend billions

>> minneapolis. your thoughts. caller: one of the most defining events was allen greenspan's failure to recognize the housing bubble. this guy should be sent out digging ditches. the other day they had him up on capitol hill testifying about some financial affairs. this guy is an idiot. he should not be given any credibility anymore. they are still talking to the idiot. how much does it take to say that he did not recognize any financial signs. he could have went out and tried buy a working man's house and recognized how expensive they were. this guy should be relevant

gated to shame. host: thank you. we'll continue talking to the defining moments of the decade and taking a look at other items in the news this morning. we mentioned at the top of the show. officers are killed in afghan attack. eight americans including officers of the central intelligence agency were killed in a suicide attack current and former u.s. officials said what could be the biggest loss since before the war began here. the article goes on to say

>> back to the phones, tony on the line for democrats. >> good morning. >> tell me what you think is the defining moment of the decade? caller: two. one is the election of the first back man as president of the united states. i commend that. the second was 9/11. if barack obama would have been the president at the time, he

would have been immediately impeached. the republican party felt like we had a strong hold on national security. we were only attacked once. that was when they were in charge. host: next up is ed. caller: one event that could define in past decade? i'm not sure. 9/11 was a moment to remember for me. i think what -- if we really look at things, looking at the way things went for the economy, we have an election that came under the

inspector of illegal massy. we have a decade of poor leadership from the top. we've ended the decade with a leader at the top that i'm still not sure about yet. is he strong enough or just a word weaverer and does he have goals that are reasonably attainable and not just desireable? >> do you see any sort of a theme flowing through president

clinton, who i thought was the best president i remember. i think he actually cared about the middle class of this country. i think if he had his way, he would have changed the tax law so that oil qups could no longer off shore their cost and jobs. i believe george bush was really out for the upper class at the expense of the middle and lower class economically. owe bada has desires for the lower class at the expense of

the middle class. that's how i'm viewing it right now. . two things. this war in iraq that i think was more of a personal desire which they say, gee, we didn't for see all these problems we can barely afford these financially. treasury takes majority stake in gmac.

writing the u.s. treasury will become the majority share holder of gmac as part of a restructuring announced yesterday. they are to receive $3.8 million by the troubled asset relief program. the treasury said in the final stage of the filing. identified in the stress test. the deal brings to a close a busy end to the year for the treasury in the tarp sceem with most elements winding down and companies such as bank of america and city group racing to repay the government.

i think in the news media loved the clintons i think it started back then you could define the definition of what is is. it started then and was immediately covered up. it's just sex. it's ok because he's a democrat. i'll be honest with you -- i wasn't a big bush man either. he was a principal man, a man of god, he was a man of his word.

you could trust him. he let the administration put bills out that where no good. now the obama administration. guys, wake up, george bush only spent one quarter of what obama has spent in nine months. we are going on $14 trillion in debt. everybody is still looking back at bush. guys, obama has been a disaster financially for this country. he's given our money away to the banks, wall street, car companies, the tarp money was a joke. we are in financial straits right now. host: president obama's nom any

has withdrawn his name from the financial reform. a former goldman sachs executive host: back to the phone. win gate, new york carolina. caller: fot caller just called about all the money obama spent. obama's money is coming back in. i know you know better.

this bombing thing, i think that was a joke. he tried keep them bringing detainees into new york. that's all that is. thank you. host: baltimore, marlede on the line for inds. go ahead. caller: this has been the perfect decade of reaping what you sew. bush, i don't blame him for being an idiot. i think he's a product of what the ivey league schools are teaching you. i really don't blame him. he's a paun in the whole system that has been created. host: do you think there has

been any lessoned learned we carry into the next decade? caller: i hope it is being good on the golf course doesn't make you a good executive. you have to actually take the test yourself. that's why i like obama and why i voted for him not because he's black but i think he can think. >> thanks for your call. >> terror attacks at finle changed our nation.

host: back to the phones. maryland on the republican line. caller: my comment. please let me make it. in this decade, hurricane katrinaa and the misery and denial and response give tonet peopho most. it is a shame that still continues. you have a brown skinned hindu and now he's a chatholic. is louisiana any different with him being in the white house? host: all right. back to the next caller from for the worth, texas on the

line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i always love to hear a black racist. on october 7, 1996, that's when i think our country changed in a bad way. that was when the bill allowed a single entity to own more than one station entity. listen to the calls. i've been listening now for about 20 years. this country has become more divided and hateful. it's become that way along party lines. in the past republicans and democrats could talk and it wasn't merely as nasty as it is now. when reagan throughout the fairness doctrine in the late

1980s allowing the rush limbaughs of the world to nourish and had that span of time at the end of the hour to have that rebuttal to the last hour's dialogue. that kind of through things out of balance too. there was nothing wrong with that law. you could rave all you wanted to but you had to allow a couple minutes at the end for a rebuttal. our country is out of balance and the media has gone wacky. host: talking about bernie madoff and stadium employees removing letters from the enron field in houston.

former president george bush and his mission accomplished speak. the weeks of discussion on television talk shows. host: we are talking about zee finding moments of the decade for the next two or three minutes. the next call on the line. caller: i'll have to say the biggest story is the fall of the american empire. we are no longer respected around the world like we used to be. no matter if it is george bush or barack obama. they are both pauns. there is no way we are going to

be a beacon like we used to be. >> host: on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: 9/11 was the event in history that is sort of like pearl harbor. it started the decade and george bush was the first president to confront terrorism. this started in the 1970s. we need to remember that. we put up with terrorism around the world until george bush made a stand. he freed 25 million in iraq and in afghanistan. time will tell how that works out. george bush stood up for

freedom. everybody ought to remember that. and i think history will reflect that. host: thank you for your call. we'll continue the discussion on defining events. in just a few minutes, we'll talk with blake houshel. that discussion will come up in a few minutes.

host: blake housfeld is our guest. guest: thank you. host: how did the 100 global thinkers get on this list? guest: we looked at some of the big issues of 200 the. we look at the prime movers behind those ideas and who made

the biggest issues. guest: people have slung a lot of arrows at ben bernanke. if he weren't there, economic crisis could have become a melt down. that's why he tops our list. host: it talks about ow how one fifth of the people on this list are economists. why is that? guest: we tried to highlight the people that made the call right and warned in advance of the problems we are having now. host: was there a specific list or things that had to be

checked off before somebody could get you on this list? we were trying to see who really had an impact. positive or negative. give us a call. for comments. coming in at number two is president obama for reimagining american's role in the world. guest: that's right. he's come into office with some

high minded ideas of how america should conduct itself abroad. if you look at the numbers, he's already changed public opinions of america. we talked to one brand expert who said obama alone added $2 trillion to the u.s. global brand name. that is something worth recognizing. host: number six, beth the clintons former president and secretary of state hillary rod am for giving smart power a star turn at the state department. guest: this is washington's power couple. there was a lot of criticism in

the primaries. i think he's overcome a lot of the criticism he got and really branded himself host: over the last year, secretary of state clinton has tried to distance herself from the wife of this former president. why group them together under one number? guest: maybe to make them mad. no. they are washington's most intriguing power couple.

they may not collaborate publicly. you remember when she went to africa and they asked her what did bill think about this and she snapped. they are a couple that matters. host: time on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think we node to learn more on how to get together. i think too much emphasis is put on clearing people out. i think we had an opportunity in the beginning when george bush was in jewish people are

great. it's just the few rich jews like murdered ock and the guys that control our country. that's the reason we are going into a lot of these wars. obama is great. there's a reason he got the peace price. they wanted him to earn that. the way america is doing today, the way we are responding to this terrorism thing is really ridiculous. we are looking at the small things we can't control. there's no way we are going to be able to control that. host: tim, we are going to leave it there. you've given us a lot to work with.

we do put too much emphasis on terror. certainlyly the under pant bomber was frightening. if you look at context. you look at what didn't happen. there's a danger in spending too many resources and emphasis on things in the america and trying to build something new. >> number eight is the reshaping of the way the u.s. military gos to war. tell us what went on behind that decision. guest: everyone knows petraeus' role in this surge in iraq. rumsfeld made a big deal. the guy really transforming the

military from within rewriting the counter insurge yens. he's been an inflewen shal figure. host: you write hear the best idea that counterterrorism requires more than counter terror forces. guest: we survade these people. they gave their own answers. we need civilians and agricultural specialists. our next call from texas.

caller: good morning. where is thomas sole on your list. caller: i'm not surprised coming from time magazine. he is probably the clearest thinker in this country. if he writes or says it,, he can back it up with reason. to put obama as number two, he is a clear marxist. host: have you ever heard him say that? caller: everybody he has associated with have been left of center and admitted communists.

guest: the funny thing is he's been criticized from the left as being a capitol sell out. sellers is one of those figures who think people think he sowed the seed for the financial crisis. take that for what you will? host: on the line from florida. go ahead. caller: i any everyone is really missing the boat here. host: if you turn down your ridor or television. caller: i think everyone is missing the boat. the whole problem is really greed with our country. your sports people are being paid too much. bankers are being paid. large companies are being paid

too much. everyone who has this greed turns ugly and gets to trouble. money is really the root of all evil here. people have to get down to basic and respect the dollar and penny is anymore. people look at pennies and throw them into the street. money has no valyu. it's about show and tell. we have to teach everyone that a penny is a penny and it means something. you got to work for things. everyone is forgetting that. host: thanks for your call. guest: i'm one of those believers that greed can be a force for good if you channel it nesketively. when we saw is what we let greed run a muck. we didn't have the structures in place to channel it to really work.

we need to figure out how to put greed in the box, if you will caller: why smnch someone like steven hawking is not on that list. this guy is the greatest mind in physics. i thought it's amazing we are living in a time when he is a live his ideas are commendable.

he didn't make the list for two reasons. as you mentioned, his greatest contribution is a brief history of time, which is some years ago. number two, we tried limit the amount of scientists because where does it end. we tried to focus on the issues that really mattered. we have scientist that's have weighed in recently he's someone that might have made this list a decade ago. coming in at 17 and 18 would be

pope benedict and richard daw kins the pope is someone that's been criticized heavily for sticking to chatholic dogma. he has shown a willingness to change. one of those is on interfaith dialogue. he's been an interesting dialogue partner for the muslims. host: back on the phone bob on the line. caller: i wanted to ask you about hillary clinton's july

14th speech. he referred to the offices in new york as the mothership. she said we get a lot of information from the council and they had just opened an office in washington, d.c. that's where she gos to find out what we should be doing and how we should think about the future. i'm wandering how much influnes the council on foreign relations has? . guest: sure they are just one of many think tanks in washington. there are a lot of conspiracy theories when that video was

posted, that video was left out of the speech. i wonder if that shows the efforts to sort of sheild these people. guest: i would say they wanted to get to the heart of her speech. caller: my list would include people like fiddle cast yo and al gore. a lot of european leaders and president obama. host: why would you put those people on the list? caller: these are people that want to bring the u.s.a. into a

global government. he believes the constitution is very flawed. it doesn't give the central government enough power. that's why we are moving in the direction we are moving. you could put supreme court justice ginsburg on there. this is a global movement by these organizations yes president obama is a maxist. he's surrounded himself with czars. ben green was a self admitted

communist. the czar of education was praising mau. host: we are going to leave it there. thanks for your call. guest: george bush would be surprised to find himself on the list with fidel castro. i'll leave it at that. host: number 13 is former vice president dick cheney. he has exerted a greater influence over the republican party's foreign policy outlook than any figure since henry kizz inninger who comes in at number 55. >> there was a fascinating

moment of dueling speeches. there is no question that dick quheny is such a voice on foreign policy. yesterday, he was quoted in sayinging obama is pretending to care about the nation's security. no question he is extremely in flewen shal. you can pick this up at the local news stand. las vegas on the line for democrats. go a head. caller: i'm calling from las vegas, nevada. i'm a marine corp combat

veteran there for the initial invasion in 2003 with the first marine division. i'm also a student at unlv studying sosheology. part of the curriculum is studying quarl marx. i wonder if they read the things he contributed to. he would probably label obama as part of the problem. he would agree with him or be proud. >> my question to you is do you

even think that he would consider obama do you think they would consider him part of that question. i'm a little nervous. it is my first time i'm calling in. i can't sleep. i'm in vegas and it is about 3:00. guest: i hope you had a fun night and thank you for your service to our country. there is a claim that obama has sold out to all these big

groups. there's a lot to that but i certainlyly think obama is no marxist. host: tell us about who these people are at number 20. guest: ashraf was a nominee in afghanistan. he's a former world bank economist he wrote a book about failed states. >> will they have any kind of an influence on foreign policy in afghanistan? >> i do know that david and the

general talk to them. these people have an important inside influence. host: next up is john on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. this is an important program for the american people. i wanted to note that almost every person on your foreign policy magazine is a global. since the 1980s, inch clinton or the bush family have been in charge of foreign policy in america. i think it is important that we look at the idea that they are trying to create the conspiracy of the new world order.

guest: anyone should look at what happened in copenhangen last month. they had a hard time signing a piece of paper. look what happens when you go on a family vacation. the more people you put in a minivan, the harder it is to figure out where you are going for lunch. >> speaking of families, coming in at nix six, the kagan familiarly.

he and his son fred are both right wing think tanks in washington. bob has kind of wrote the book on u.s.-europe relations. host: the reason for grouping them together as one unit was what? guest: it seemed like a fun thing to do. they do operate as a family sometimes. sometimes they collaborate. they are an interesting american family with a lot of ideas. host: the managing editor of foreign policy magazine. previously, he has been the web editor there and worked at the

center for development studies in cairo. what kind of assignment was that? guest: i was working for a magazine there. it was an organization promoting dem crassy in egypt and the arab world. kind of a tough mission. host: back to the phone on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm glad to see barack obama is on that list. i voted for him and i'll vote for him again. i think keith oberman from msnbc has a great mind. i'd put his mind up against anybody. guest: he's a funny guy. i appreciate the way he's brought the impact of sports to the political world.

host: among the journalists on this list, at 37 fareed zakaria. guest: he brings a lot to the table. some of these sunday shows you get a lot of politicians and consultants. it's refreshing to see real experts on tv. host: mike on the line. go ahead. . .

due to technology and all these other things. guest: i think charlie rose is certainly one of the most insightful interviewers and journalists around today. we do not have many journalists on the list. if we did, he would have to be

on it. host: this is the first time a foreign policy has put together a list like this? guest: we had a list a few years ago about public individuals -- intellectuals. we talked about geo strategists and politicians, right in our warehouse. host: how does an intellectual differ from a politician? guest: in a global thinker is speaking to a wider audience. host: how many people were involved in putting this together? guest: about 10 of us on our editorial team. host: did you speak directly to the people to get information about them, were they gleaned from interviews, surveys?

guest: we polled them and got responses from about two-thirds of them. we had a big sit-down interview with some of them, bill clinton, and we went to new york to see him. host: was it hard to get some of the people to get interviewed? guest: we had a good mix of people. some are harder than others. host: first phone call. caller: i have a question and a comment. i am a republican and i am getting sick hearing people call our president a marxist, a

communist. is really getting out of hand. i am only 53 years old but i remember in our civics class, we have respect for the president, whether you like him or not. this is terrible what we are doing. do you think he was alarmed the past few years? they have more insight than us, seeing these financial woes coming. i do not know what he was thinking about, but he was not thinking about his up. this did not happen overnight. it took a few years.

guest: i would say if we were making the list of top bankers in 2006 when bernanke came in, i do not think he would have made it. once he realized and saw the magnitude of the crisis, he acted boldly, and with courage, to stem the tide. the truth is, a lot of the problems in the economy were sort of baked into the cake when he arrived. we had this jenga-like structure of mortgages, and it muswas inevitable that there was going to be some sort of problem. i think he made it said that it was not worse.

host: next, columbus, ohio. kim is on the line. caller: i would like to say a couple of things. on what you just said about how they are treating barack obama, it is nonsense. it is frustrating to see how we treat this man who is really trying to save this country. to me, the republicans are a joke. these people with the tea party things -- i think they've listened to the republicans and watch fox news. i do not mean them any harm, but they are easily tracked.

how can they talk about barack obama the way they do? after everything they did in eight years. i have many friends who have lost everything. they are totally tricking these people. how is this fair to anybody? the country is in bad shape. there is no time for this political stuff. what i want to add is this -- how can we get our country back when things started so bad for barack obama? how can we have people separate us, like this, at a time when we are in bad shape? guest: there are a lot of people who are unhappy at how the

budget we have become. i hope barack obama can fulfil the promises he made when he came in, changing the tone in washington, being a real uniter. it is not easy. you try your best and take shots from all sides. now that we are putting healthcare behind us, which was very divisive as, maybe we can focus on things that will unify people. host: another journalist, thomas friedman, for his genius in popularizing complex ideas. guest: he is actually the most popular columnist in the india recently. -- in india recently. he takes forward-looking the ideas, talks to people are around the world and is able to

package them in a way that speaks to a broad columnist. host: how did you discover that he was the most popular in india? guest: i think i read it in a newspaper. host: is that because he is so popular, or because there are so many people reading his column? next phone call. caller: good morning. bill kristol, and there are sort of like mad scientists, they had never met a muslim they would not want to bomb. and did sarah palin make the list? guest: she did not. we saw the extent of her global

fought in the campaign. i will leave it there. host: next phone call. caller: i believe barack obama is not a marxist. he is a good thinker, tries to plan things out. our country is about pulling together and trying to make things work, no matter your politics. i think if everyone knew what the rich things of america, they think nothing of view. i have worked for them. you have the best of everything. but when they look at the

workers that work for them in their companies, they do not care about you. it is all about them and the buck. any person that cooks, thus service jobs -- they know what is going on for the super rich. guest: one of the people on our list was barbara erinrich. she writes about what it is like to be pour in america, -- poor in america. there is definitely a lot of anger about the economy, unemployment. it is something that barack obama will have to get his hands on. host: how long did it take you to get this list together?

guest: about three weeks. host: taking a look at paul kennedy, a historian from yale university. guest: it does seem like we are at this historical moment when american power is declining. maybe he just wrote his book too early. host: college park, maryland. good morning. caller: this is a very sad day in america. since barack obama has been collected, the election of -- elected, the election of 2008, america needs to get a grip. how long is it going to take?

america has to realize bush was there for eight years. he did a lot of damage when he was there. all they can see is -- it is a black man, all the negatives. america has blood on her hands. we cannot keep going to other people's countries and try to set up a democracy. that is all i have to say. host: thank you. guest: no question, obama came into office with a deep hole. america's image around the world was devastated. he is trying to get us out of iraq, some stable equilibrium in

afghanistan. i wish him the best and i really hope he can make it work. host: we have tweet from hoopsbuddy -- he is talking about normal liver beanie for accurately forecasting the -- nouriel roub ini for accurately forecasting economic recession. guest: many people call him the doctor of doom. we ran a column by him who said it is going to explode. i am sad to say that he was right. host: in last phone call comes from charlotte. on the line for independents.

caller: the comment that the person made about the global list movement, i have to disagree with that. those who do that is discrediting them as a conspiracy theory, and so on. thank goodness the people are waking up. you can finally see that in the tea party movement. there is a global list movement going on. you can see that from the rights that we have lost. guest: i think, where we really need to start worrying about our right to is where we look at the intersection between terrorism and our civil liberties. we cannot let a bunch of guys in caves in afghanistan tell us how we have to live our lives. i believe it at that.

host: the top 100 global thinkers of 2009. like hounshell, thank you for being on "washington journal." when me come back, we continue our discussion with a defining event of 2009 with carl cannon and robert schlesinger.

@÷ >> fox news contributor michelle malkin is our guest this weekend on "book tv." she is the author of four books including "culture of corruption." part of a three-day new year's weekend. >> that is not the business and judges are in. we are not here to make the law. we decide who wins under the law that was adopted. >> unprecedented conversations with 10 supreme court justices. tonight our interview with antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg. interviews with supreme court justices.

get your own copy on dvd as part of c-span's icon to collection. >> there is less than one month to enter the c-span2 thousand 10 student -- 2010 studentcam video. highlight a problem that the country is facing. winning entries will be shown on c-span. host: for the next hour we will be talking about the funding the events of the decade with roberts lays in your and -- robert s. schlesinger and carl

cannon. robert, your defining moments of the decade and why? guest: i think if you had to choose any similar event, it would have to the 9/11. if any event set the tone for the world in terms of policy, and would have to be the attacks of 9/11. host: carl cannon, your thoughts? guest: it was a very pitiful decade. people are sort of tired -- good riddance. the decade started close to here with the inaugural presidents who had not even won a plurality of the popular vote. then we were attacked on our own soil. it happened in 1941 as well.

that is a rare event. then you have two awards as a result of the attacks. we are still in both of those wars. now we are in the midst of -- we hope it is near the end of the -- but this is marking the second year of the worst recession in memory. there have been some positive things, too. the first african-american president, the first latina on the supreme court. sniper of chilly, the boston red sox when the world series. -- perhaps parochial thly, the boston red sox win the world series. host: featured very prominently are president barack obama and former vice presidential

candidate sarah palin. tell me why these folks were so high up on the list of winners and losers, and why they helped to define the event of the decade. guest: this is not a scientific order, but obviously, they dominated the political scene. president obama is an extraordinary thing. the left, and that you had on, the managing editor of "board policy magazine" talking about how obama is perceived abroad -- we have never had someone is popular around the world. they gave him the nobel prize. everybody wants him to succeed, all over the world. here at home, although our politics is polarized, he is not a particularly polarizing figure. that is what we need to remember.

bush and clinton were party people. he has a persona that people like, and the world wants barack obama to succeed. that is an amazing thing. sarah palin, she is polarizing, but she is laughing all the way to the bank. how dumb to quit your job in alaska. we calculated her book advance how long she would have had to be governor -- we calculated about 2049. she has a big family and now taken take care of them all. host: will her influence extended into the next decade? guest: perhaps, one not? guest: i think the question is not if, but how far. when you have carl and i back, will we be talking about her as

a dominant figure of the decade? host: robert, in addition to being an editor, you also blog. you can find information on usnews.com. tell us about why you wrote about those four people. guest: this is our annual list of most admired men and women. not surprisingly, the president was the number one most admired person in the country, which happens every year, even when president bush was very unpopular. on the women's side, it was hillary clinton. she just edged out sarah palin.

hillary clinton has been the number one person the last 14 years or something. this is an important exercise in name recognition. the reason tiger woods was in there because it -- is because he was in a four-way tie with bill clinton, george bush, and john mccain. as i mentioned in my blog, in case people wonder whether or not the american public are taking sides with the woods, elin nordegren was also in the top 10. angela merkel was also there. it was a bizarre collection. host: margaret thatcher, my angelou.

-- maya angelou. host: in the meantime, we are going to continue our discussion of a defining event of the decade. the numbers are on the screen. fort lauderdale, florida. john on the line for republicans. caller: you are not the son of arthur/inner are you -- arthur/singer -- arthur schlesinger, are you? >> yes, i m. -- guest: yes, i m. caller: i remember him speaking at my university. tell him i say hello.

guest: unfortunately, my father passed away. caller, i am sorry -- caller: i am sorry to hear that. as far as immigration reform goes, i think it is going to curb when the illegal immigrants to come to this country because it is going to be just as bad as the country they came from. guest: i do not really have anything. guest: that is a pretty good definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. host: texas. susan on the line for democrats. call, i might have to agree with that last person -- caller: i might have to agree with that last persiaperson. bush was not the brightest light

bulb in the house. he did not even realize cheney was defining his eight years. he is still trying to do that. sarah palin, she tells sell many lives she cannot keep them straight. this christmas day bomber, i do not understand why it is not brought up time and time again -- i think it was amsterdam -- my those employees -- why those employees are not held accountable. flying overseas with no luggage? host: thank you. talk about her intentions with bush and cheney, having a declining influence on the decade. guest: when you look at the major events of the decade, you can look at it in two levels.

specific stories, like 9/11, like the 2008 election, iraq, afghanistan, hurricane katrina, or more thematically, and she did hit on some of the more important themes of american politics, such as the return of the imperial presidency. the return of a very assertive -- power accruing executive, which we saw in the bush years. guest: i wanted to make a comment about one thing she said -- bush not been the brightest light bulb in the house. he graduated four years from yale. jenny fluncked out.

i think some of this name calling is not accurate. host: oregon. on our line for independents. caller: i think one of the defining event of the decade would be the shaping and evolution of the entertainment industry all the way from the popular rise of the mp3 players, how you can have this digital music collection, the continued evolution of the online content, being able to stream high-

definition content. they are adjusting the advertising schemes for that. the overall success ability and the evolution of access to the entertainment these days is pretty amazing. in 2000, you could download music from napster illegally, but you did not have a itunes. it is amazing how quickly industry can adapt to the emerging technologies to take advantage of possible profit. host: thank you for your call. thank you for being up early. guest: i always hate it when a caller is more articulate than i

am. your blackberry, it has more computing power than when i started at norad. the things that have gone on in the technical revolution of decade, it has gone on so quickly -- he is right. guest: speaking thematically, the rise of social media feed so much the important events of the decade, and has shaped our lives. just in terms of politics, your blackberrys -- think back two years ago to the election. barack obama speaking at what he thinks is a private fund-raiser, talking about veterans cleaning their guns, and their religion. then someone has their blackberry and record it, and the next day, it is on the internet. guest: you mentioned our list,

facebook and twitter are on the list. sarah palin communicate on facebook. twitter played a role in the revolutions in iran. host: do you believe this new digital media technology will eventually put traditional media out of business? we will not be able to read robert schlesinger's colorado in its current format? guest: everyone understand the miracle of technology. the business model is lagging behind. you need editors, you need people to filter. you cannot have an open mic night every day.

you have to have some filter, writing, editing. but how do you get paid? that is the big riddle for our industry. guest: one of the trend of the industry is the traditional decline -- is the decline of traditional media. we have a magazine, a digital said christian -- subscription- based thing, we write blogs. guest: i have gone digital. guest: we are all trying to figure out what is going to work. host: mississippi. gary on the line for republicans. caller: how are you today? host: good, how are things in

the south? cocoa is cold, but we are blessed. -- caller: it is called, but we are blessed. barack obama is one of the greatest things that has happened to the country. i believe if people wake up and understand what is best for the country, a lot of people are stuck in the past. i do not agree with everything he does, but i agree with what he inherited -- he is doing a lot better job than what the polls give him. i wish everyone would understand it is not just about one person, but america as a whole. he is doing the best he can.

i will take your comments off the air. thank you for what you are doing. keep c-span going. host: thank you. robert? thus, the mention of the polls is interesting. -- guest: the mention of the polls is interesting. they are often looked at in washington. i more or less support the president. i hope you are right, that he turned out to be one of the greatest things to happen to this country, but it is important, especially in this era of immediate media, is important to setback and say, we

are in the second inning, let's say. host: beyond being the first african-american president, is it too early to look at his administration and define what kind of definition it might leave on the decade, -- if he is to be a defining moment, will it come in the decade following? guest: predominantly, his impact will be on the coming decade. obviously, he has had to undertake a great deal this year. technically, it is not the final year of the decade. i just wanted to get that out there. but in terms of having an aggressive agenda and doing a pretty good amount, he has had

an impact. i think we have to look forward -- when we talk about his great impact -- it will be in the 10's. host: phillipsburg, new jersey. rich, go ahead. caller: how come you do not have people like jesse ventura on every day? he speaks the truth. he knows more than these two guys. what are you talking about 9/11? all these people walking around, they should be in jail. something stinks. no one talks about it. these people are human beings.

torture is wrong. it violates the geneva convention. host: thank you. guest: i would like to go back to the previous caller. it was an interesting point that you made. it is barack obama's impact going to be felt this decade or next? i think perhaps the next one, but i do not want to get caught up in that oslo feeling. he won the election, made some tough decisions in afghanistan, and began a tough fight of health care. the fruits of this will be next year and beyond. george bush left approval ratings in the low 30's. at this time of year, his numbers were probably around 70.

so it is all in front of us for president obama, and we have to remember that. we need to take a deep breath with these polls. 53 -- 53% approval ratings when you have 10% unemployment? that is pretty impressive. guest: there is a fallacy that we fall into, assuming that trend follow current projections, six months later we could be saying that he was great, or maybe he was just as bad as a push. host: is there a concern on your part that the bush administration, clinton administration, obama administration will be defined by the polls and other than by

the offense, or how they handle them -- events, or how they handle them? guest: i do not think so. bush left with a record low numbers. guest: truman left office with lower numbers than george bush. presidents are judged by who came after them, what happened, the fruits of their labor. when the post-mortem of the eisenhower was written, everyone talks about the shah in iran. even now, i think it is too early to write about the legacy about george bush.

guest: i think that is a good point, but my point about the bush poll -- that datapoint will be remembered in a larger picture, in the way that truman -- people remember that truman left with record low approval ratings. clinton, i could not tell you. probably positive. guest: truman, he has become this figure that can be invoked by any party now. our memories things happen and it causes us to go back and reevaluate. host: we are talking about defining moment of the decade with carl cannon and robert schlesinger. georgia, on the line for democrats. caller: i think what defines us

most is how we treat one another. carl was speaking about filtering. for instance, this year, veterans will not be getting a cost-of-living increase because someone determined there was no inflation in this time of recession. the consumer price index -- some on down individual -- some on known individual -- decided we did not deserve a cost of living increase. people are really going to suffer because everything is going up and their income is going to stay the same. i think that defined us, how we

treat one another. these people who are unknown that hold a position of service are ill-serving the community. host: we are going to leave it there. talk about what he had to say, in terms about defining economic events of the past decade. guest: the house and bauble was this predictable thing, and people did predict it, they wrote books about it, and we did not listen. the banks went belly up, the recession was made much worse because small businesses could not get the money they needed. big business laying people off. we have 10 percent unemployment. the white house, if they can be faulted for one thing is, they are very bright -- larry

summers and all of them. they predicted it would go up to 10%, and then because they predicted it, and it acted as if they should not be blamed. that number represents about 18 million missing guns. until we get that back, millions of americans will be hurting. -- missing jobs. the government is looking for all sorts of different ways like cost-of-living freeze is to hold down the debt. well, it all begins with employment. it is the indicator. host: next phone call from maryland. missouri, sorry about that. gregg, go ahead.

caller: i think the defining moment of the decade is the health-care issue. also, the trial in new york city for the terrorists. i see a lot of bad things coming from this, and health care. when you have 10% unemployment rate and imposing taxes, how is this going to help? this is the nationalization of health care. i think the country is moving in the wrong direction. i am proud of the tea party movement that has occurred. this is a waking up of the american society. and there were mentions of the polls, how they are not defining for presidents, and i have to

disagree with this. this is an indication of what the american general public is feeling. host: thank you. robert slicing her -- slashing her -- schlesinger? guest: polls are a reflection of the american public, but oftentimes they changed their mind. it is like we are watching one football play per day. they dropped the past, do we fire the coach, offensive coordinator? then the next day the team is rolling. you have to sit back and see how things play held a little bit. host: talk about how healthcare has been a defining moment in the decade.

guest: the fact we are focusing so much about it shows us that we have gone to the point where we are and gone ahead. assuming the house and senate come to some agreement, how the issue plays out will be a defining moment of the next decade. does this become a medicaid, social security-type of program where it is deeply popular, or does it become an albatross that since the democrats? guest: -- sinks the democrats? best, this is an unusual thing on capitol hill -- guest: this is an unusual thing on capitol hill. the democrats are hard pressed to pass something that is unpopular. are they crazy? no.

once this becomes law, they are convinced that people are going to like this more. i was speaking to about three tiered, and that is what she said. -- valerie jarrett, and that is what she said. host: why do they believe that the thinking will change once they sign off on it? guest: the administration believes that the critics do not really know what is in it. they are getting their news from fox news wore their neighbor. i am the critic of them, but the people who are criticizing it have opinions about it which are really not in the bill. everybody likes to pick on george bush, but he shepherded

into a medicare program that gave the elderly people a drug prescription benefit. democrats said that it would be too expensive and did not go far enough, sometimes in the same sentence. we talked about how confusing it was. i called my mother down in florida, and i asked her if i needed to walk her through this. she said it was easy. there was all this bad press and one political party that now penn it but the public and the up -- bad-mouthing it but the public ended up liking it. guest: is easy to lose sight of the things that people agree on, which cannot get talked about as

much. people will not be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. end of life caps. 30 million people who are not covered will have insurance coverage. democrats are banking on these things improving the opinion. host: frederick, maryland. alice on the line for independents. caller: good morning. it is my first time calling. it is an interesting conversation. i think the defining event of the decade is the loss of money. baby boomers have been working for over 40 years, looking toward retirement. today, they still cannot because they lost almost all of

their money due to the financial crisis. nobody seems to be focusing on that and all the events that have been it is a result of the financial crises. corporations have moved across the seas, have taken jobs away. we are in a moment of a changing industry. i do not know what will happen in the next 20 years, for the younger folks, but the industry is changing. i remember it was the agricultural industry. then it became the logical. what is next? host: have your plans been altered by the economy? guest: yes, it has. my 401k lost so much money. my husband lost all of his.

we are finally regaining some, but we do not have the time to make that money up. all the corporations and ceo's and people who have money have taken the money and gone. host: started to cut you off, but we have to move on. robert? guest: no question the financial crisis is one of the huge stories of the decade i think people are paying attention to it and most of the year has been dealing with that -- stimulus package. as you said, 10 percent and unemployment. that is a figure that will dominate certainly in the early years of the coming decade. -- as you said, 10% unemployment.

host: do you think wall street has learned their lesson, or will we be back here in time, 15 years? guest: i think there is a real question about that. -- 10, 15 years? i think most people would predict that it could be business as usual. guest: all these people lost money from their retirement so quickly, and it is coming back slowly. maybe her net worth is not as much as she realizes, but there was this trauma. you could hear it in her voice. you can work all your life, you are worth this much, and then one month later, it is worth only half. that is dramatic. host: date on for democrats. massachusetts. -- dave on the line for

democrats. caller: you could go through your house without a warrant. it shows how frail freedom can really be. thank you. guest: i have the opposite view. i believe freedom is strong, natural. you have people in iran who have never lived in a free country. they crave this freedom. i would have the opposite message from 9/11. freedom is strong, it is hard to take away. few people agree with everything that was done after 9/11, but i

do not believe freedom is frail. guest: i would not agree with their depiction of the patriot act, but there is a point to be taken that freedom is strong, but it is something -- eternal vigilance is required. you do have to keep an eye -- and this is coming from a big government liberal. you have to keep your eye on what they are doing. you have to make sure they do not encroach too much. host: in terms of security forces privacy issues -- versus privacy issues, what would you say to those who say, in light of what happened over the christmas weekend with the flight going to detroit, that

people still want to hold onto their personal freedoms. they do not want to go through these x-ray machines because they do not know where the information is going and they are willing to risk someone coming on to another plan with an explosive device so that they can maintain their personal freedoms. guest: this is one of the argument that stemmed from 9/11, talking about being a defining moment of the decade. we have had this conversation in varying forms in the last nine years about where do we draw the line? what level of danger are we building to tolerate, as a society, because our freedoms -- it is important to make sure that they are secure than to

embrace too much security. host: mike on the phone from jacksonville, florida. caller: first i have a comment and then the question. i believe the defining moment -- of course -- for the country was 9/11. so many things changed across so many facets of our lives, and they continue to do so. i wish this administration could remember that, but they seem to have left that behind as a police the event, not a terrorist event. i really want you to try to enter as honestly as you can. you mentioned that obama's ratings were so high, even with unemployment falling apart, and

he was at 53%. do your guests believe that it is the media -- if they were not so pro-obama and so for the administration -- that he would, in fact, have the ratings he has? i know it will be very hard, but i would like them to try to answer that. guest: i will be very honest. i do not think that person has ever read a word that i had written. i am not a shell for the administration. in fact, even some of my best friends do not know how i think about things, but i do point out liberal biases in the press. i think it continues. i think i ever journal to model

was broken. we've reflected too little of this rich variety of abuse of americans -- views of americans, and we were sort of stock at left-of-center, and that was a problem. in terms of job approval ratings, i think americans can make up their own minds, but i do think there is a liberal bias in the press. guest: i think the bias is overstated. maybe 30 years ago, 40 years ago when you could have gotten the important washington and the opinion influence jurors, literally, around a small table -- now in the communications age we live in, you can find k